Adolescent literacy
Jul. 18th, 2005 11:37 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kimberkitI recently read an article that defined "adolescent literacy" as the ability to comprehend and make meaning of writing in a variety of mediums: internet-speak, newspapers, textbooks, email, fiction, nonfiction.
So, I have a confession to make: I am functionally illiterate. I don't follow the newspapers faithfully (Matt T had to explain what the big fuss with the Karl Rove case was), because it makes me feel helpless or angry to see the news half the time, when I don't plan on going into politics. I don't speak AOL. I can read nonfiction well enough, and comprehend it, but I don't give a damn half the time because it usually comes across as academics farting around, and, as far as I can tell, not doing much to save the world, even if they sometimes have interesting theories that may or may not work.
I think the point of the article was that adolescents have to differentiate between all the mediums they're inundated with, but that really should have taken a sentence.
Anyway. Either I'm a sad failure of the education system, or "adolescent literacy" is a meaningless term. Probably some of both -- I really should be more interested in watching the world fall apart by the seams, rather than wondering what I can do to save it, and I probably should be less disrespectful of the intelligentsia. And "adolescent literacy" is just another buzzword replacement for "secondary reading fluency and knowing how to tell academic writing from non-academic writing."
So, I have a confession to make: I am functionally illiterate. I don't follow the newspapers faithfully (Matt T had to explain what the big fuss with the Karl Rove case was), because it makes me feel helpless or angry to see the news half the time, when I don't plan on going into politics. I don't speak AOL. I can read nonfiction well enough, and comprehend it, but I don't give a damn half the time because it usually comes across as academics farting around, and, as far as I can tell, not doing much to save the world, even if they sometimes have interesting theories that may or may not work.
I think the point of the article was that adolescents have to differentiate between all the mediums they're inundated with, but that really should have taken a sentence.
Anyway. Either I'm a sad failure of the education system, or "adolescent literacy" is a meaningless term. Probably some of both -- I really should be more interested in watching the world fall apart by the seams, rather than wondering what I can do to save it, and I probably should be less disrespectful of the intelligentsia. And "adolescent literacy" is just another buzzword replacement for "secondary reading fluency and knowing how to tell academic writing from non-academic writing."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-18 09:09 pm (UTC)A kid who says, "this article is boring" as an excuse to not read the thing because it IS boring is very hard to tell apart from a kid who says "this article is boring" because they are functionally unable to read it. See what I mean?
I know that sometimes, when reading boring ed articles, I'll realize that, two pages later, I haven't understood anything I've read because my mind's gone elsewhere and I don't care, or I don't want to care. So it's arguable that, if I were a less motivated student, and didn't take out a pen, highlighter, and force myself to rephrase what whoever-it-was said, then I'd fall behind significantly. What if that had happened in elementary school, and I hadn't had a teacher to spark my interest in getting through texts? I would've flunked, because there's no way I would've started rephrasing stuff in margins on my own.